After reading Apostles of Reason, I'd say this is a hit, perhaps not a home run, while that was a strikeout.

She makes some good points.

Molly Worthen wrote:By contrast, the worldview that has propelled mainstream Western intellectual life and made modern civilization possible is a kind of pragmatism. It is an empirical outlook that continually — if imperfectly — revises its conclusions based on evidence available to everyone, regardless of their beliefs about the supernatural. This worldview clashes with the conservative evangelical war on facts, but it is not necessarily incompatible with Christian faith.

Yeah, and maybe with a bit more emphasis than she says this. Conservative Evangelicals don't complete the whole picture when they develop a theological view, they don't always include all of the possible conclusions. For example, they come up with a very strong view of the sanctity of human life, and pour that all into protecting the unborn, even though that's just nine months of a lifetime. Other things which are directly related to that perspective, like being provided with life saving health care, or the immorality and cruelty of execution, which takes the power of life or death out of God's hands, are ignored. And those who hold a view beyond the limited foresight of the conservative Evangelicals are considered liberals.

Molly Worthen wrote:He pointed out that “cynicism and tribalism are very closely related. You protect your tribe, your way of life and thinking, and you try to annihilate anything that might call that into question.” Cynicism and tribalism are among the gravest human temptations. They are all the more dangerous when they pose as wisdom and righteousness.

That resonates with me, because it has been very disappointing to see conservative Evangelicals trade what they always championed as a strong theological foundation for political expediency to support a secular candidate who is at the polar opposite side of everything that they claim to be. As it turns out, many of the leaders of the evangelical movement have turned out to be more willing to abandon principle, and less rooted in the foundations of their Christian teaching than the liberal, mainline Christians of whom they are always critical. I keep thinking there has to be some underlying reason that has an awful lot more power than what shows on the surface. Cynicism and tribalism are apt descriptions of it.

But as you know I think she is two for two. Two homeruns the first being Apostles of Reason.

Hope to share with Eric Kuykendall of staff FBC Spartanburg over the weekend and my new friend on Trey Gowdy's DC staff.

Shared my experience with him Thursday about the book So the Heffners Left McComb originally published 1965 by Hodding Carter, but reprinted last year with stellar new intro by U Mississippi Press with a panel on booktv.org

Compared the Heffners to a milder version our family faced in Gaffney in the 70s, though for certain we had some moments of high drama.

She spotlights Furman grad who chronicles the Cathy's of Chic Fil A, Darren Grem in this piece. Grem, native of Rock Hill South Carolina has family members there familiar with the dark career of Jim Deloach, who helped oust Randall Lolley from SEBTS, then hooked up with the Ed Young wing of the BGEA and his fellowship of excitement.

OK, Stephen. Hold on to your hat. I read Apostles of Reason and I think she fizzles and misses making a strong point. We're not going to agree on that. The post I commented on above, not a home run, but definitely a hit. This one is the grand slam.

Molly Worthen wrote:Nowhere is this tendency more obvious than in the evangelical subculture that nurtured Donald Trump himself: the prosperity gospel. When Trump was a child, his family attended Marble Collegiate Church in New York City, pastored by Norman Vincent Peale, a celebrity minister whose influence radiated throughout evangelical circles and beyond. He was one of the most famous proponents of a spiritual style sometimes called the “Health and Wealth” gospel or “Name It and Claim It” faith.

Praying for a new car or a promotion may sound “shockingly materialistic,” FitzGerald writes. But for believers, prosperity theology means that the material world has “a miraculous, God-filled quality.” Its basic tenets appear throughout the Bible—the notion that God answers prayers, rewards believers with worldly blessings, and punishes those who don’t keep the faith. And then, like most heresies, it pushes such orthodox teaching to an extreme. Imagine that your desired reality is true, Peale urged believers. His handy slogan: “Prayerize, picturize, actualize.” Peale, the dean of “the power of positive thinking,” would have understood Trump’s penchant for inventing his preferred reality.

She makes some historical comparisons. Baptists made an alliance with Thomas Jefferson, who cut out all of the passages of the gospels about the miracles, because it was politically expedient for them to do so, to protect their religious liberty. The anti-government principles of conservative Christians went out the window quickly when they needed the government to legislate prohibition. Worthen contends that selling out is easier for conservative Evangelicals, who seem to do so more frequently than the mainliners they criticize, and the "liberals" whom they claim to despise for it because they ignore denominational structures, and many of their leaders have built large personal kingdoms, and have made themselves fabulously wealthy, off of peddling the gospel. The complete abandonment of their values in order to support Trump is easy to understand. Their money is the most important thing, and protecting it at all costs is their mission. So their Jesus looks a whole lot different than the one in the Bible.

She was interviewed couple weeks ago just after her piece in the Atlantic about evangelicals soul liberty and their inclination to Trump. She also talks about irregular church going nativists who use their sense of soul liberty as a mindset to go for trump and talks about the lack of ecclesiastical authority in the Baptist tradition that opens the way for Adrian Rogers, now Jeffress and Falwell Jr to use fundy history and authority of the Word in that tradition as an excuse to misapply for instance James Dunn's rubric of aint nobody gonna tell me. Thus seen it becomes a tool for demagogues and charlatans and we get Trump as a perfection of the underbelly of Bush 43/Rove Strategy with the "evangelical" community.

Listen to her, she does a better job of explaining herself then read the Atlantic piece; then the NY Times piece on fundies and the false narrative.

This is really an excellent inverview, very engaging. I have to say, Stephen, that she's done some good research, though she doesn't ever land anywhere near your favorite topics, and you have to pull your usual trick of putting in a subject line and a couple of paragraphs to take us from Jesse Helms, John Birch society, the Texas Regulars, Paul Pressler, Wuthnow's Rough Country, to the First Baptist Church of Spartanburg, SC before getting to the point, which has distorted and filtered her thesis by then.

Dianne Winston, Now at Berkley gets it. I remember seeing her in San Antonio SBC 88 and then again in Atlanta in the press room at the start of the CBF. Pretty sure she is a native of NC and know for certain she got her start with the Raleigh News and Observer. She knows what Jesse Helms did to Randall Lolley at SEBTS in 87 and what UNC Chancellor Bill Friday told Cecil Sherman about it.

So she knows what she's talking about in the following link.

FTR I had an exchange with an ADF staffer a few weeks ago about Handmaids Tale. Casey Mattox who Ive known since he was in sixth grade and I was his sub in Momma's alma mater in Bama said Handmaid's tale is a ruse and signifies nothing other than what leftist elites think it does in their own minds. To him it has no real connection in the heartland.

I think it may be out there in the atmosphere more than he knows.

Fascists is a strong word but I think Winston's piece would be good resource for students of FBC Spartanburg Truth for a New Generation conferences to think about.

This morning I picked up the 73 authorized bio of Criswell by Billy Keith waitin on the skillet to heat for the eggs. I share the yellow with my kitten.

Was reminded that Billy Graham wrote the Preface glorifying Criswell as master of one of the premiere pulpits in the world, according to Billy. Billy said he prayed for his pastor wherever he was in the world every Sunday. By 73 Billy said he had been a member at FBC Dallas for 25 years which woulda meant he joined in 48 and been 8 year member when Criswell gave the race baiting speech to a joint session of the SC legislature with the blessing of Strom Thurmond who I think introduced Graham to Henry Luce the editor of Time Mag, or maybe that was one of the Buckleys who had Camden SC connections as Kathleen Parker does now.

The final paragraph is being stated to belittle conservative evangelicals while the very description given defines the authors mindset and comments. The cynicism presented and tribalism desired is clearly the goal of the author.

The first line of Jon's post not only zaps the credibility out of anything else he has to say, but it typifies, and provides evidence for the author's thesis.

Essentially, the author says that "conservative evangelicals," or the self-described who fall under that umbrella, typically offer nothing more than assertions, certainly nothing of any depth, including a well reasoned argument supported by scripture, and shallow responses to real questions, with a dismissive attitude. The general response is exactly as predicted. There are catchwords for emotional appeal, the usual stuff claiming, but offering no substantial proof, that the position is contrary to the Bible to faith, and of course, always playing the victim because you have to create an enemy who is "belittling" your perspective. Labeling this "stupid" and throwing in the all purpose "left wing garbage" label is exactly the kind of characterization the author makes, Jon's response being a particularly textbook example that proves the author's thesis and contentions, and most notably, a white flag surrender of his position.

To even attempt to engage the argument that way is inconsistent with Biblical truth, much less the complete cop-out.

An actual "worldview," derived from the Bible, is nothing like what gets billed as a "Biblical worldview," is something based on presuppositions infused with right wing political perspectives, not based on scripture at all, though most people who spout such a position don't know enough about the scripture to know the difference.

Sandy wrote:The first line of Jon's post not only zaps the credibility out of anything else he has to say, but it typifies, and provides evidence for the author's thesis.

Essentially, the author says that "conservative evangelicals," or the self-described who fall under that umbrella, typically offer nothing more than assertions, certainly nothing of any depth, including a well reasoned argument supported by scripture, and shallow responses to real questions, with a dismissive attitude. The general response is exactly as predicted. There are catchwords for emotional appeal, the usual stuff claiming, but offering no substantial proof, that the position is contrary to the Bible to faith, and of course, always playing the victim because you have to create an enemy who is "belittling" your perspective. Labeling this "stupid" and throwing in the all purpose "left wing garbage" label is exactly the kind of characterization the author makes, Jon's response being a particularly textbook example that proves the author's thesis and contentions, and most notably, a white flag surrender of his position.

To even attempt to engage the argument that way is inconsistent with Biblical truth, much less the complete cop-out.

An actual "worldview," derived from the Bible, is nothing like what gets billed as a "Biblical worldview," is something based on presuppositions infused with right wing political perspectives, not based on scripture at all, though most people who spout such a position don't know enough about the scripture to know the difference.

Speaking directly to the content of article and quoting a Man I knew and thank God for... "A skunk by any other name still stinks."

Yet, I do thank God for the illustration He gave me through this article I will use Friday as I preach Friday from Colossians 2:8.

Buying into Trump certainly fits that verse in Colossians 2:8, "having been taken captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition and the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ." As they say down south, "That'll preach."

Sandy wrote:Buying into Trump certainly fits that verse in Colossians 2:8, "having been taken captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition and the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ." As they say down south, "That'll preach."

My comments are not necessarily pro Trump but more anti-liberalism. Liberalism... Exactly what this article is spewing... Man before God... exactly what Colossians 2:8 speaks too.

If your problem with me is that I exalt God above mans intellect, then you will continue to have a problem.

Sandy wrote:Buying into Trump certainly fits that verse in Colossians 2:8, "having been taken captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition and the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ." As they say down south, "That'll preach."

My comments are not necessarily pro Trump but more anti-liberalism. Liberalism... Exactly what this article is spewing... Man before God... exactly what Colossians 2:8 speaks too.

If your problem with me is that I exalt God above mans intellect, then you will continue to have a problem.

If that's your definition of "liberalism," then you have a real problem. That's not liberalism, that's humanism, but neither article is "spewing" any of that.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation (general definition, multiple source citations)

How, specifically do you "exalt God above mans (sic) intellect?" You may exalt your opinion or interpretation of scripture of what constitutes "God above man's intellect" but your opinion doesn't make it an infallible or accurate view.

Sandy wrote:Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation (general definition, multiple source citations)

How, specifically do you "exalt God above mans (sic) intellect?" You may exalt your opinion or interpretation of scripture of what constitutes "God above man's intellect" but your opinion doesn't make it an infallible or accurate view.

WOW!!! To think a Christ follower would even ask such a question baffles me. Let me give a simple example. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are fact, not myth. Standing on this fact against man's skewed intellectual interpretation which differs from scripture is a clear example.

What makes it accurate is not my interpretation but what God has given clearly in His written word.

Jon Estes wrote:What makes it accurate is not my interpretation but what God has given clearly in His written word.

What is "given clearly"? The scriptures require study and interpretation, and what you think is "given clearly" may not be as clear to someone else who knows the original languages and sees the context and the words a bit differently. Even conservatives disagree on what is "given clearly." And if you want to start with those first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis, you've got all kinds of cans of worms to deal with there, just from what the word says, even if you start from a literal historical context.

I'm a preterist when it comes to eschatology, because I believe the book of Revelation should be interpreted in a literal-historical context exactly the way the gospel accounts of Jesus' eschatological discourse should be interpreted, and all of the gospels, epistles and historical references. But dispensationalists make the same claim to literal interpretation and come up with a completely different perspective, including the addition of "dispensationalism," a theory that has no scriptural support.

You offer no example and no argument to your claim about either of the articles Stephen posted. Instead of just lashing out, violating scripture by name calling and labelling someone "stupid," provide an example of what was written that you judged according to your own evaluation, and discuss. Otherwise, you offer, as you said elsewhere, the proverbial cricket chirp..........................

Experience plays a role, too, and experience varies. I know that my sense of what is "clear" in the Bible (and in other scriptures) is based in part on my personal experience of the salvific intervention of God in my life at a time when I considered myself an agnostic who rather hoped the atheists were right. Not everybody has such an experience, and some who do are convinced the saving intervener was someone or something other than God. If it hadn't been for the second bottle of wine, I might believe that myself.

Jon Estes wrote:What makes it accurate is not my interpretation but what God has given clearly in His written word.

What is "given clearly"? The scriptures require study and interpretation, and what you think is "given clearly" may not be as clear to someone else who knows the original languages and sees the context and the words a bit differently. Even conservatives disagree on what is "given clearly." And if you want to start with those first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis, you've got all kinds of cans of worms to deal with there, just from what the word says, even if you start from a literal historical context.

I'm a preterist when it comes to eschatology, because I believe the book of Revelation should be interpreted in a literal-historical context exactly the way the gospel accounts of Jesus' eschatological discourse should be interpreted, and all of the gospels, epistles and historical references. But dispensationalists make the same claim to literal interpretation and come up with a completely different perspective, including the addition of "dispensationalism," a theory that has no scriptural support.

You offer no example and no argument to your claim about either of the articles Stephen posted. Instead of just lashing out, violating scripture by name calling and labelling someone "stupid," provide an example of what was written that you judged according to your own evaluation, and discuss. Otherwise, you offer, as you said elsewhere, the proverbial cricket chirp..........................

What the Bible says TRUMPS what you want the Bible to say. This does not mean we will understand it all, as man wants to do.

Jon Estes wrote:What makes it accurate is not my interpretation but what God has given clearly in His written word.

What is "given clearly"? The scriptures require study and interpretation, and what you think is "given clearly" may not be as clear to someone else who knows the original languages and sees the context and the words a bit differently. Even conservatives disagree on what is "given clearly." And if you want to start with those first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis, you've got all kinds of cans of worms to deal with there, just from what the word says, even if you start from a literal historical context.

I'm a preterist when it comes to eschatology, because I believe the book of Revelation should be interpreted in a literal-historical context exactly the way the gospel accounts of Jesus' eschatological discourse should be interpreted, and all of the gospels, epistles and historical references. But dispensationalists make the same claim to literal interpretation and come up with a completely different perspective, including the addition of "dispensationalism," a theory that has no scriptural support.

You offer no example and no argument to your claim about either of the articles Stephen posted. Instead of just lashing out, violating scripture by name calling and labelling someone "stupid," provide an example of what was written that you judged according to your own evaluation, and discuss. Otherwise, you offer, as you said elsewhere, the proverbial cricket chirp..........................

What the Bible says TRUMPS what you want the Bible to say. This does not mean we will understand it all, as man wants to do.

This is not difficult for most people.

But you are claiming that YOU are the one who gets to say what the Bible says. You've pointed to zilch when it comes to your claim that the linked articles were "stupid." You just made a blanket statement that they were stupid and provided nothing, not even a verse twisted out of context, to back up your claim.

So which is it? Is the Sabbath a day of rest in imitation of God's behavior following Creation (which could also be used to buttress Deism) or in memory of how overworked our ancestors were before the union came along?

Haruo wrote:So which is it? Is the Sabbath a day of rest in imitation of God's behavior following Creation (which could also be used to buttress Deism) or in memory of how overworked our ancestors were before the union came along?

Wow, that brings up all kinds of questions I remember asking when younger. Why did an all-powerful God need to "rest" after the work of creation? If the sabbath is a day of rest, then why do we have to come to church and make the pastor work? Since the greater light and lesser light, divided between day and night, didn't come along until the fourth day, then how long were the first three day so of creation? Sunday school teachers love those.

Haruo wrote:So which is it? Is the Sabbath a day of rest in imitation of God's behavior following Creation (which could also be used to buttress Deism) or in memory of how overworked our ancestors were before the union came along?

Wow, that brings up all kinds of questions I remember asking when younger. Why did an all-powerful God need to "rest" after the work of creation? If the sabbath is a day of rest, then why do we have to come to church and make the pastor work? Since the greater light and lesser light, divided between day and night, didn't come along until the fourth day, then how long were the first three day so of creation? Sunday school teachers love those.

I'm not sure I see how the Sabbath rest would be related to Deism.

Some Deists appropriated this verse from Genesis to support their notion that once he was done creating the universe, the Deity withdrew into a state of inactivity ("rest") - this places us still in that seventh day. Of course, it begs the question of then what the heck was God doing in the other 65+ books that followed.